Airport security - the new stuff

Simon_Gardner wrote in post #17042322I definitely absolute hate all the security and would much rather it wasn't there.

And indeed I do always drive for preference (like to the arctic a few months ago) but it's not such a good option for getting to the USA from Europe. Or to New Zealand etc.

Exactly as I stated above. There are many people that are totally selfish and that is unfortunately a growing trend. The good thing is that you if do plan to travel into the USA you most likely won't have a choice.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17042161Given recent events, it seems that explosives INSIDE the plane should not be our most pressing concern

I typically agree with most of your comments but this one just doesn't fit your normal opinions. Given the recent events has nothing to do with the USA and it's policy to check electronic gear before allowing it on it's "inbound flights". As for recent events, USA aviation banned air travel on those particular routes over Ukraine a while ago and has now widened the areas that are banned for travel. The fact that specific corridors have been banned by USA aviation would indicate that "OUTSIDE" the plane is one of our most pressing concerns.

m3incorp wrote in post #17042130I'm guessing that your mission/task isn't as important to the government as the "safety" of others. I fly quiet a bit and actually feel much better when I know that security is super strict. I'm guessing that the majority of air passengers are not photographers that HAVE to take items along that they CAN NOT prove or powered on or off.

There are options though, that may NOT be cheap, efficient, or fast methods of transporting these "have to have items", such as take a ship (definitely ticks all three of the boxes above), drive (inter country of course), mail your items, or purchase/rent at your destination.

While the above may sound sarcastic, it is definitely available options.

It is amazing how many people would rather skip safety just because it INCONVENIENCES them.

And it could also be said that it is amazing how many people who think the airport security is safe. And there are still now and then performed tests where three, four or more out of ten "dangerous objects" are walked through the security without being caught.

And most frequent flyers have own stories of how they have walked through airport security with forgotten items left in their pockets and bags without the items getting spotted.

The main success for terrorists isn't the amount of dead. But the amount of wrenches in the wheels all over society. All the time and money lost in security controls, and the insecurity. That's their goal. So you and the terrorists just happens to both find it good with all the airport security, and the resulting chaos.

m3incorp wrote in post #17042428As for recent events, USA aviation banned air travel on those particular routes over Ukraine a while ago and has now widened the areas that are banned for travel. The fact that specific corridors have been banned by USA aviation would indicate that "OUTSIDE" the plane is one of our most pressing concerns.

The main reason why there initially was warnings about flying over Ukraine wasn't for perceived risk of planes being shot down, but perceived risk of how well the air was controlled. With the country split in two - how would you get the two halves to agree on handing over the air control responsibility? And do both country halves even have air traffic control capability?

pwm2 wrote in post #17042497And it could also be said that it is amazing how many people who think the airport security is safe. And there are still now and then performed tests where three, four or more out of ten "dangerous objects" are walked through the security without being caught.

And most frequent flyers have own stories of how they have walked through airport security with forgotten items left in their pockets and bags without the items getting spotted.

The main success for terrorists isn't the amount of dead. But the amount of wrenches in the wheels all over society. All the time and money lost in security controls, and the insecurity. That's their goal. So you and the terrorists just happens to both find it good with all the airport security, and the resulting chaos.

I think we would agree that some security is better than no security.

Now you want to associate me and terrorist without knowing anything about me. Since you seem to know what the terrorist goals are would make you closer tho them than I. I do however have certain degrees that would most likely make me a little knowledgeable and work in a certain field No it isn't TSA.

I've been to your country but do not pretend to know anything about the security in it. It could be possible that what you state about SWEDEN'S security measures is entirely true. Note that everyone of my statements referenced USA aviation.

pwm2 wrote in post #17042505The main reason why there initially was warnings about flying over Ukraine wasn't for perceived risk of planes being shot down, but perceived risk of how well the air was controlled. With the country split in two - how would you get the two halves to agree on handing over the air control responsibility? And do both country halves even have air traffic control capability?

Maybe for Sweden but that is not the case for USA. To answer your second question I would suggest a little research. Which country air traffic controllers reported loss of contact.....ahhh

m3incorp wrote in post #17042561I think we would agree that some security is better than no security.

Now you want to associate me and terrorist without knowing anything about me. Since you seem to know what the terrorist goals are would make you closer tho them than I. I do however have certain degrees that would most likely make me a little knowledgeable and work in a certain field No it isn't TSA.

I haven't associated anyone with terrorists.

I have only noted that terrorism = to incite terror.

And all the time lost in security controls is one of the goals with terrorism. Any gravel in the machinery represents a win. Any extra friction is a win. Any extra money spent in security is a win. Any extra insecurity in a flight passenger is a win. Any extra visibility is a win.

m3incorp wrote in post #17042570Maybe for Sweden but that is not the case for USA. To answer your second question I would suggest a little research. Which country air traffic controllers reported loss of contact.....ahhh

pwm2 wrote in post #17042497So you and the terrorists just happens to both find it good with all the airport security, and the resulting chaos.

This statement tends to make me believe that you did indeed associate me with them.

I do agree that time lost can be one of "their" goals. I do understand what you consider as "their wins". I plane brought down because it implemented NO security measures would definitely be THEIR win. Now tell me, would you rather be on a plane where you and everyone else was allowed to board with no security measures, or would you rather spend the 3 minutes in security and feeling a bit safer? That is not saying that all security is great.

Notice that the world is larger than US and have more organisations than FAA.

Notice the text "DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICTING AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC)"

I did take notice and having visited over 20 countries, I can testify that the world is vastly larger than the US and that their are more organizations than the FAA. Did you take note that my statements were in reference to the US and NOT to any other country? Knowing exactly why the "USA" forbid travel over particular corridors, I can say yes that I did note your quoted commented is wrong for the "USA".

I say we drop this pointless conversation and let's get back to what we both enjoy and that is photography. Have a great weekend.

m3incorp wrote in post #17042600This statement tends to make me believe that you did indeed associate me with them.

Not that intended.

Just that there can be multiple groups of people with different goals/views that may end up wanting the same thing.

So one group wants safety.And one group who wants terror to introduce the costs of safety.

Now tell me, would you rather be on a plane where you and everyone else was allowed to board with no security measures, or would you rather spend the 3 minutes in security and feeling a bit safer?

1) Not my claim.2) I have a hard time finding an international airport where I just spend 3 minutes in security.3) I know that security screening leaks - which is ok because the huge majority of guns, knives, etc that doesn't get caught was never intended to be used on the planes.4) The airport security costs more than just time. It has happened that I have spent a whole day and/or night out in the field solving some issues while consuming all my phone and/or laptop power - without airports quickly adding a huge amount of power outlets there will quickly be lots of additional monetary costs for travelers and companies from not being able to power up their equipment.

It should not be ignored that the airport security costs many billions for the travelers.

m3incorp wrote in post #17042614I did take notice and having visited over 20 countries, I can testify that the world is vastly larger than the US and that their are more organizations than the FAA. Did you take note that my statements were in reference to the US and NOT to any other country? Knowing exactly why the "USA" forbid travel over particular corridors, I can say yes that I did note your quoted commented is wrong for the "USA".

I say we drop this pointless conversation and let's get back to what we both enjoy and that is photography. Have a great weekend.

But you very clearly indicated that I might talk about local Sweden but should read up about what I claimed.

And it wasn't a US carrier so wasn't covered by the FAA notice from April 23.

And the FAA from April 23 was - to my knowledge - for the southern part of Ukraine and not pertinent to this flight.

And it wasn't - to my knowledge - until July 18 that FAA did include this part.

So I don't really think I did fail on reading up before I did that initial remark of mine - I really do try to be correct in non-subjective statements I may make. But I'm always interested in learning more, and there are always huge amounts of information I haven't seen

Anyway - lots of people, companies and organizations around the world have changed their minds about how to handle flights around conflict zones after this week

pwm2 wrote in post #17042639But you very clearly indicated that I might talk about local Sweden but should read up about what I claimed.

And it wasn't a US carrier so wasn't covered by the FAA notice from April 23.

And the FAA from April 23 was - to my knowledge - for the southern part of Ukraine and not pertinent to this flight.

And it wasn't - to my knowledge - until July 18 that FAA did include this part.

So I don't really think I did fail on reading up before I did that initial remark of mine - I really do try to be correct in non-subjective statements I may make. But I'm always interested in learning more, and there are always huge amounts of information I haven't seen

Anyway - lots of people, companies and organizations around the world have changed their minds about how to handle flights around conflict zones after this week

As in our PM. Many governments don't post public announcements that you not do this or that lest you be killed. If you were a pilot you would darn know why you are advised not to do a certain thing.

m3incorp wrote in post #17042428I typically agree with most of your comments but this one just doesn't fit your normal opinions. Given the recent events has nothing to do with the USA and it's policy to check electronic gear before allowing it on it's "inbound flights". As for recent events, USA aviation banned air travel on those particular routes over Ukraine a while ago and has now widened the areas that are banned for travel. The fact that specific corridors have been banned by USA aviation would indicate that "OUTSIDE" the plane is one of our most pressing concerns.

Sorry, I think you mistook my posts intention. I was merely posting to relieve pain and grief over this horrifying incident. Did not mean to "load" the discussion in any way. Totally knee jerk post.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17042912Sorry, I think you mistook my posts intention. I was merely posting to relieve pain and grief over this horrifying incident. Did not mean to "load" the discussion in any way. Totally knee jerk post.

Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

Latest registered member is protocolscg1395 guests, 272 members onlineSimultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.